quote:So if I can DVR a show on tv legally, can someone download a movie on their computer legally if it is being shown on HBO, or how about TNT? Or does the fact that commercials are still paying TNT's bills make it illegal?

Serious question?

You are paying a content provider for the content that you store on your Dvr

re: IP topic of the day: The Pirate Bay's legal policyPosted by GhostofJackson on 2/13/13 at 7:40 pm to Decatur

quote:Most nations are signatories to international treaties protecting IP but not all of them enforce it like others would like them to

And I understand there is a legal definition for intellectual property. The "idea" of intellectual property is not one that I would take argument against. Many people believe it exists, that is not the issue at hand. The issue is that many of us believe public realm material should not be considered dually private. Information and materials, once it leave the confines of private use and is public, should not be hindered in use, monetarily or legally.

re: IP topic of the day: The Pirate Bay's legal policyPosted by ForeLSU on 2/13/13 at 7:41 pm to Decatur

quote:Honestly I'm not sure what you were responding to with this I went through the thread too fast

you initially said that algorithms aren't copyrightable...but that wasn't the initial point anyway. But I responded that patents are the problem. Then you responded with algorithms are patentable. Which is just semantics...systems, methods, processes, etc.

quote:The issue is that many of us believe public realm material should not be considered dually private. Information and materials, once it leave the confines of private use and is public, should not be hindered in use, monetarily or legally.

re: IP topic of the day: The Pirate Bay's legal policyPosted by Decatur on 2/13/13 at 7:51 pm to GhostofJackson

quote:The issue is that many of us believe public realm material should not be considered dually private. Information and materials, once it leave the confines of private use and is public, should not be hindered in use, monetarily or legally.

I think many of y'all have issues with intangible property rights...at least it seems that way to me

Yes and no. First off, you have to consider the legal system of the US. We have laws, and then we have laws undone by repeal or by judge ruling. That means either we create bad laws, or people don't understand laws and later have to change them, or times change and you have to change laws as well.

As noted earlier, some judge rulings would side with our argument, some laws may not. Legality is hard to argue from because unlike ideology, it can be affected and changed by sources outside oneself. Therefore those people who argue from a legal standpoint only are more likely (IMO obviously) to have less time spent looking into ethical dialogue from which to determine their stances because their stances revolve around what other people have already set up for them.

That was a long rant but to sum up is this: Just as most people run stop signs and red lights, citation or following of laws is usually only when it comes to ones own benefit. Ideology is what we are hammering at in this thread for the guys on my side of the fence. I don't care much for what the laws say, my opinion above the law is that public means public, you can't have two ways about it.

How? I read this, and I get that is what you have felt throughout the thread, but how is it anti-liberty?

quote:I'm also making a futurist argument that IP is incompatible with the information revolution and will be eventually discarded and laughed at by future generations.

You're probably right, but there will be a transition period to that new method of capturing the monetary gain of innovation. You guys seem to want to tell innovators to screw off in the interim, though. If I'm working on something currently that you steal and distribute, I'm going to come bust your knees out personally.

quote:Yes and no. First off, you have to consider the legal system of the US. We have laws, and then we have laws undone by repeal or by judge ruling. That means either we create bad laws, or people don't understand laws and later have to change them, or times change and you have to change laws as well.

As noted earlier, some judge rulings would side with our argument, some laws may not. Legality is hard to argue from because unlike ideology, it can be affected and changed by sources outside oneself. Therefore those people who argue from a legal standpoint only are more likely (IMO obviously) to have less time spent looking into ethical dialogue from which to determine their stances because their stances revolve around what other people have already set up for them.

That was a long rant but to sum up is this: Just as most people run stop signs and red lights, citation or following of laws is usually only when it comes to ones own benefit. Ideology is what we are hammering at in this thread for the guys on my side of the fence. I don't care much for what the laws say, my opinion above the law is that public means public, you can't have two ways about it.

I can clear up more if you want, I tend to write SOC.

I'm going to get back with you in a minute on this. The Mrs. is calling me to take a shower with her.